MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7017785115

The âBoth-Andâ Choice: The Impact of Informational, Motivational and Behavioural Skill Messages on Adolescent Dual Protection

2008· article· en· W7017785115 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomReproductive healthDual (grammatical number)Sample (material)Promotion (chess)Human sexualitySexual behaviorSafer sex
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The promotion of simultaneous condom and hormonal contraceptive use is an imperative given increasing rates of sexually transmitted infections and patterns of sexual behaviour in Canada. Previous research has shown that few adolescents engage in dual protection due to a number of barriers including attitudes and beliefs about sexual health risk. These attitudes and beliefs are shaped by key sexual health referents including parents, friends, educators, health care providers, and sexual partners. This study investigated how these sources influence information, motivation and behavioural skills (IMB) that lead to dual protection. Attitudes and beliefs are shaped by information and motivation from others as well as sexual health skills learned. In a sample of 875 first and second year undergraduate university students, 52% of students reported being sexually active. From this group, a sample (N=333) completed three modified sexual health/behaviour surveys (Hampton, Jeffery, McWatters, & Smith, 2005; Misovich, Fisher, & Fisher, 1998; Sangi-Haghpeykar, Posner, & Poindexter, 2005) that assessed dual protection behaviours, sources of report (e.g., parents, friends, etc.) for IMB messages, and IMB scores. Forty-three percent of participants engaged in consistent dual protection, 17% engaged in inconsistent dual protection and 40% engaged in no dual protection behaviour. Three research questions were posed: 1) Does the content of IMB messages differ among sexual health referents?; 2) Does the form of message differ among sexual health referents?; and 3) What is the impact of IMB on dual protection behaviour? To test the research questions, chi-squared tests and a multiple regression analysis were computed. Both the content and form of message were found to differ by sexual health referents. Adult referents were more likely to provide pregnancy prevention messages and informational messages rather than adolescent referents. Adolescent referents were more likely to provide motivational messages than adults. Only motivation scores were found to predict dual protection behaviour; both information and behavioural skills were non-significant. A significant effect was detected F (1, 318) = 59.57, p < .001 with the motivation score account for 16% of the variance in the dual protection behaviour score. Findings have implications for the creation of programs and interventiosn directed at sexual health referents to shape adolescents’ IMB and promote dual protection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Same topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207